Critics fear proposed Springfield ordinance could lead to billboard proliferation

Proposed ordinance causes concern

Aug. 19, 2013

A billboard stands along Chestnut Expressway. The Springfield City Council could soon consider a proposed ordinance that critics say could increase the number of billboards in town. / Dan Holtmeyer/ News-Leader

Written by

With critics warning that proposed changes could lead to “hundreds and hundreds” of new billboards along local streets, Springfield’s director of building development services was busy Thursday squeezing hypothetical signs into city blocks.

“I’m studying right now what kind of impact it would be with specific numbers,” said Chris Straw, who plans to present the information to City Council on Tuesday.

“A whole lot of new billboards are going to be built here and in places and locations you might not want to have a billboard in,” said Greg Watkins, who worries a billboard boom could create a backlash.

“I feel that it would be harmful to the city and very harmful to the look and feel of Springfield.”

The conflict appears to center on a basic question: Should a billboard advertising a business at the location of the business be subject to different rules than one off-premise, such as the other side of town?

Ten or 15 years ago, when much of the current ordinance was written, the thinking appears to have been that billboards were a different beast. Despite objections from the sign industry, city ordinances banned billboards and other off-premise signs in non-business areas, limiting them to areas near Interstate 44 and state-controlled highways.

Even then, significant restrictions limit the size and proximity of billboards along designated “scenic corridors,” including James River Freeway.

The distinction between signs based on their use has created problems over the years, Straw said, as well as pressure from the sign industry and business owners seeking more flexibility.

(Page 2 of 3)

As he and his staff met with a stakeholder task force to develop the new ordinance during 2012, the group gradually moved away from the idea that billboards should be treated differently.

“The more discussion we had with the task force, it was a philosophy ... (that didn’t apply anymore),” he said. “A sign is a sign, correct? ... The thinking was, regulate the height, regulate the size, regulate the location and go content-neutral.”

Under the proposed policy, signs would follow the same rules regardless of their content. In most cases, the less restrictive limitations that had applied to on-premise signs would be used, although Straw noted that the maximum possible size for billboards would be reduced slightly, from the current 400 square feet to 350 square feet.

By eliminating the distinction between the two types of signs, the new ordinance would allow a mixing of the two, which isn’t allowed currently.

A large electronic sign for a shopping center, for example, could shuffle through ads for its tenants but also sell excess time to businesses located elsewhere. A business built on the same lot as an existing billboard could rent space on the billboard, while a business that wasn’t interested in its own detached sign on-premise could erect a billboard and rent it out for additional revenue.

“I’m regulating the number of signs based on how much space I’ve got to work with,” Straw said. “I’ve got a sign, irregardless of which way I go.”

Watkins said Monday that it makes sense for the city to allow on-site signs to be on billboards. “But you don’t do the reverse.”

He and fellow sign owner Larry Lipscomb argued the “content-neutral” approach would create a host of new problems.

“It’s fine like it is,” Lipscomb told council members. “There’s not a whole lot of places to build billboards and that’s just fine, there are some, there’s plenty. But with this there would be hundreds and hundreds and hundreds, there really would. Assuming this would pass I’ve already identified 30 or 40 spots and I’m sure every sign guy has done the same.”

Straw expects to have a memo ready in time for council’s Tuesday lunch meeting that will respond to the concerns raised last week. It’s not clear yet whether council will vote on the plan Aug. 26 as scheduled, amend it or send it back to the task force for review.

Of the nine members of the task force that met in 2012 on the issue, six represented the sign industry or other business interests. In past interviews, several applauded the city for simplifying sign regulations and taking a more permissive approach.

Of the remaining three, neighborhood representative Phyllis Ferguson could not be reached Friday.

Rusty Worley, who represented the Urban Districts Alliance, said there was “considerable discussion” about the new approach regarding on- and off-premise signs. But his focus was on changes more important to downtown property owners, such as allowing multiple attached signs on buildings that house more than one business.

“We don’t see a lot of (billboards) down here in center city — our space is so precious that businesses typically are using it for on-premise signs,” Worley said.

Susan Hansen, the other at-large representative, said she couldn’t comment on the criticism leveled Aug. 12 because she hadn’t yet watched a recording of the meeting. But she did say that the task force had discussed the content-neutral philosophy “very thoroughly” and agreed on the approach.